Say Anything

Like most politicians, Barack was willing to say anything to win the presidency. Dig any hole now, we can climb out of it later.

A suicide car bomber struck a U.S. military convoy passing through a crowded market in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday, killing at least five civilians and a coalition soldier and wounding an additional 57 civilians, officials said.

In order to be a peace candidate while not being perceived as weak on defense, Barack embraced the war in Afghanistan - that's the war we need to fight, that's the war we need to win, he said - Iraq was the wrong war.

The bomber rammed his vehicle into the convoy as it traveled through Bati Kot district of Nangarhar province, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, a spokesman for the provincial governor.

At least five civilians were killed in the blast, said Ghafoor Khan, the spokesman for the provincial police chief. Fifty-seven civilians were wounded, said Ajmal Pardes, a provincial health official.

Now, Barack has challenges other than looming economic disaster - how to responsibly (ie gradually) withdraw from Iraq after having built expectations that he'll draw down willy-nilly, and how to win the war in Afghanistan using troops who really need rest, not redeployment.

Lt. Cmdr. Walter Matthews, a U.S. military spokesman, said a member of the U.S-led coalition died of his injuries received in the attack. He would not disclose the nationality of the victim, but another U.S. spokesman earlier said that the wounded soldier was an American.

If confirmed, that death would bring the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to at least 148, the highest annual tally of troop deaths since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. There were 111 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan in all of 2007.

Barack took ownership of Afghanistan in order to change the long held perception that Democrats can't be trusted to defend the nation. It's his war now, and he's got to win it.

The bomber struck the convoy near a crowded market, where people were trading sheep, cows, goats and other animals, Mr. Khan said. An Associated Press photographer said that an American military vehicle, two civilian vehicles and two rickshaws were destroyed.

Taliban militants regularly use suicide attackers and car bombs in their assaults against U.S., Afghan and other foreign troops in the country. But a majority of the victims in such attacks have been civilians. On Wednesday, a truck bomb in southern Afghanistan killed six people and wounded 42.

Iraq

The Washington Times has a story today indicating that Barack inserted himself into conversations between the Iraqi government and the Bush Administration over a still unresolved status of forces agreement - terms for the U.S. to remain in Iraq upon the expiration of UN mandates.

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.

Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.

While this is potentially explosive, details are elusive and complex, so it is unlikely to become a significant campaign issue barring more definitive information as to the exact nature of what Barack was asking of the Iraq government. You'll recall a similar accusation in the New York Post by Amir Taheri last month.

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari's request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling. However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.

Barack's cover on this is his dual role as a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate.

Presidential nominees traditionally have not intervened personally in foreign-policy disputes, although campaign surrogates have done so.

Just Imagine

Imagine if this is true.

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

And imagine if it can be confirmed. (The above video doesn't discuss the matter, it's just there for background on Zebari).

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for
delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

I consider that eventuality to be unlikely.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US
elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said
in an interview.

But you can't blame a guy for hoping.

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the
activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered
that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN
mandate.

His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened
Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including
Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Revisiting Barack's Iraq Lies

I'm having fun on YouTube today.

For Democrats who have blinders on regarding the enormous deception committed by Barack on primary voters, watch his before and after responses on his Iraq withdrawal position.


In the first clip, he is asked if he will affirm what his campaign manager says his Iraq strategy is - unequivacle withdrawal in 16 months. He rocks slightly in discomfort and sidesteps a direct response - but he doesn't dispute the policy as the quote from David Plough explains it.

Flashback II - The Iraq Debate

It is fascinating to see just how wrong the Democrats were on the war in Iraq - even just months ago! Here's another debate flashback, one that makes it clear just how much they were responding to polls, rather than principles, in making their points.

Iraq

Please read the op-ed piece that I co-wrote with John Arquilla of the Naval Post-graduate College on the war in Iraq. It appears in today's San Francisco Chronicle.

The Best Thing That Could Happen in Iraq
John Arquilla - Todd Feinburg

The "October Surprise" is a time-honored tradition in election-year
politics. This time around, bombing Iran would be the worst sort of surprise. But the best possible surprise might unfold right next door - in Iraq...

Breakdown

Look at how voters view the candidates on the major issues as revealed in the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll. Barack leads significantly only on the environment and healthcare, while McCain leads bigtime on national security, the war in Iraq, immigration, taxes and abortion. Barack is trusted more only on 4 of these 14 major issues. Do you feel you've gotten a good sense of this from media coverage?

McCain-Obama: Trust on Issues	McCain	Obama	Links
Economy	45%	44%	C, T
National Security	51%	40%	C, T
Energy	46%	42%	C, T
Ethics	44%	46%	C, T
Iraq	51%	39%	C, T
Immigration	45%	36%	C, T
Environment	40%	48%	C, T
Balance Federal Budget	43%	40%	C, T
Negotiate Trade Agreements	45%	40%	C, T
Taxes	47%	40%	C, T
Social Security	44%	38%	C, T
Healthcare	41%	46%	C, T
Education	39%	43%	C, T
Abortion	40%	34%	C, T

By the way, Barack leads by two points in the poll.

And Isn't It Ironic?

Is it by design, or just dumb luck, that Barack seems to have things going his way on the war in Iraq? Walter Russell Mead writes in the LA Times about a situation loaded with ironies.

The net result, ironically, is that the antiwar candidate who predicted failure is benefiting most from the war's success.

It's such an incredible accomplishment that it's hard to imagine orchestrating such a thing.

Thanks to the surge he opposed, the policy Obama championed -- a relatively swift and steady withdrawal of U.S. combat forces over 16 months, conditions permitting -- no longer looks dangerous, irresponsible or an invitation to defeat.

The clever part of Barack's strategy is providing himself cover for being an Iraq peace-nik by acting like a hawk on Afghanistan. The wacko wing of the Democratic party is happy because he's anti-war on Iraq, and while being a hawk on Afghanistan, he gets to repeat the party line that that's where we should have been focused all along. Brilliant!

But, ironically, Obama is using his new maneuvering room to toughen his stand rather than soften it. In Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, he wants to send in more troops, take a harder line with Islamabad and crush the elusive Taliban beneath his heel.

I've always felt that being lucky is a talent, and it's one that Barack seems to have in spades.

Obama's pilgrimage abroad points to a larger truth: In the midst of a bitter political year, a loose bipartisan consensus on the Mideast may be emerging. And, irony of ironies, the consensus, seemingly embraced by Obama, seems closer to Bush's views than to those of the antiwar activists who propelled the Illinois senator to the nomination.

McCain Outfoxed on War?

Did Barack kidnap the upper hand on Iraq from McCain this week? By shifting the focus to Afghanistan, and talking about escalating the war there while satisfying his base by talking about withdrawing from Iraq, Barack may have pulled off an incredible bait and switch, becoming the anti-war candidate who wants war!

Obama officials also say the push from Iraqi politicians for troop withdrawal schedules roughly in line with his (with the exception of Sunni chieftains who still fret about a rapid US exit). The language of “aspiration time horizons” agreed upon by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and the Bush White House also gave Obama a glide-path in Iraq on the question of troop movements and nothing on they trip, they believe undercut that opening advantage.

The foundation of Barack's trick, is, or course, the success of the surge, which Barack opposed. But McCain even found a way to muddle that point.

On July 23, McCain said the surge wasn’t really about more troops, but counter-insurgency tactics. And yet the political credit McCain seeks for the turn-around in Iraq is based principally on his advocacy if the surge - meaning more troops to carry out counter-insurgency missions. To say the surge wasn’t really about more troops undercuts much of McCain has tried to tell the public about what has changed in Iraq and why.

This is true, of course. What is known as the surge is a collection of tactical changes that have led to a dramatic success - but some argue that the least important of these was adding more troops to the mix. But why would McCain seek to cloud the issue he's worked so hard to highlight, making it possible for the left to argue this:

If you define “the surge” as broadly as he does here, you can no longer claim that Barack Obama opposed it. Obama, of course, has never been opposed to the use of more effective counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq. Indeed, from the moment Obama arrived in the Senate in 2004, he criticized the Bush administration for failing to appreciate that it was dealing with an insurgency and adopting appropriate counter-insurgency techniques. For example, in this 2005 speech Obama argued that we need to “focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency.”

Beating the Dead Horse Again

As perhaps I've mentioned before, Barack this week reneged on his primary campaign promise to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. For some reason, the media is refusing to notice. Here are just a couple of examples.

From Time Magazine:

Obama's liberal supporters, on the other hand, have been unsettled by his recent comments suggesting that, as President, he might "refine" his timetable for bringing American forces out of Iraq based on the recommendations he gets from American commanders.
It's already been as refined as white sugar.

The French news service AFP says in a story today:

In a major foreign policy address on Tuesday, Obama reiterated his promise to get most US combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months, and to focus on Al-Qaeda havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

No, he muddled the language on that commitment so that no one will ever be able to say he had such a commitment.

Just to recap, here is the position he erased from his website this week:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Now, his new position, as articulated in his speech Tuesday.

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months... After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq... We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do.

Notice that he says "we can" withdraw in 16 months. This sentence doesn't even make clear that a 16 month withdrawal is part of Barack's plan - we have to infer this from the later statement, "After this redeployment." And, that redeployment is now contingent on tactical adjustments.

The Judgment Tour

A British newspaper, seeking to give its readers a primer on Barack in advance of his arrival in Europe, had this to say about his plans for the war in Iraq:

Plans for Iraq

"On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war."

How is "ending the war" a plan? That's a goal, for which a plan is needed. Barack has yet to propose one to replace his abandoned 16 month withdrawal proposal.

Then there's this one:

Good friends

Celebrity supporters include Ben Affleck, George Clooney, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L Jackson and Robert De Niro.

Those are his good friends? I think they're what we call Liberal Hollywood Celebrities who support Barack. His good friends are Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and Reverend Pfleger.

The drugs

Obama has revealed that, as a youth, he did smoke marijuana. When asked if he inhaled, he said: "That was the point."

They left out his admission to doing "a little blow."

The fluff

American journalists are outdoing each other in a race to produce the fluffiest, most inconsequential coverage of the candidate. On Wednesday, cable news breathlessly reported that Obama had spent more time in the gym than on the campaign trail as he prepared for his European tour.

Ah, yes, the fluff. Finally they got one right. And "The Circus" isn't bad either.

The circus

Some of the biggest drama of the Obama tour is the jockeying of the big American media stars for exclusive interviews. They all want face time with the "The One", as he is derisively known by advisers of his opponent, the Republican John McCain. On board Air Force Obama and whizzing around in the "bubble" of blacked-out SUVs will be Katie Couric of CBS and Charles Gibson of ABC as well as the NBC News anchor Brian Williams. Star political reporters from the major newspapers and magazines are big-footing those who have followed Obama from the beginning.

Is it Withdrawal or is it... Confusion?

Apparently, Barack has so beautifully articulated his Iraq policy that absolutely no one knows what it is. This is the only explanation I can come up with for the fact that I have been ranting all week about how he has now officially abandoned his commitment to the 16 month, unequivocal pullout, while others, much smarter than I, interpret his New York Times op-ed, his speech, and the new website language as meaning the precise opposite.

After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

That's what the Washington Post wrote in its scathing editorial yesterday morning, as it accused Barack of being inflexible and unwilling to adjust his policy in the face of dramatically changed circumstances as a result of the surge.

Just to recap, here is the position he erased from his website this week:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Now, his new position, as articulated in his speech Tuesday.

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months... After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq... We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do.

The transformation, for me, is absolutely dramatic - from a clear, decisive withdrawal schedule without caveat to a suggestion that "we can" withdraw in 16 months. This sentence doesn't even make clear that a 16 month withdrawal is part of Barack's plan - we have to infer this from the later statement, "After this redeployment." And, that redeployment is now contingent on tactical adjustments. Then, Barack insults himself for having previously held a position without an exception for tactical adjustments, which he says is an imperative for any Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill.

But his commitment to consult with commanders and the Iraqi government and make adjustments as needed is the big flip flop!!! How can they skip right over the fact? Is the Post just throwing up it's hands and saying, "It's not for us to read between the lines. If we can't figure out what he's saying, we'll assume there's nothing new?"

The Post concludes:

Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Exactly. That was always the case, but it was never admitted to by Barack until now.

Surge Purge

When the Obama campaign purged his website Sunday night of his troop drawdown proposal for Iraq, it also purged his claims that the surge wouldn't work. If you're going to rewrite history, it's a good idea to delete the record, no? Here's the truth of Barack's poor analysis, in video, as compiled by Wake Up America.



And from the Top of the Ticket blog at the LA Times:

A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.

The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.

The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama's plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.

When President Bush ordered the surge in January, 2007, Obama said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.

Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was first to notice the removal of parts of Obama's campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of "The Problem." An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an "update" to "reflect changes in current events," as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of al-Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.

It's Official - Barack Flips on Iraq

Welcome to visitors from sites like Instapundit, The Real Barack Obama, Small Dead Animals and Pundit Review. After you read this post, check out "Barack Lied, Hillary Died."

Barack's website has been updated - he is no longer calling for a blind withdrawal of troops from Iraq - the position that outflanked Hillary and won him the nomination.

Here's what his official position has been since before the primaries, as outlined on his website, without any caveats about talking to commanders or conditions on the ground:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Could you give that to us again, just to make sure no one is confused?

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.

Here's Barack's new position:

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Democrats were duped into dumping Hillary. Has a more malicious and manipulative politician ever walked the earth? It's hard to imagine.